Independent reviews

18+Play responsibly
Skip to content
NextCasinoScout
News

Illegal gambling ads on Facebook and Instagram: regulators push Meta, and one operator tries a different route

A Dutch lawsuit, criticism from Britain's regulator and a French court order have put Meta under pressure over illegal gambling ads, while Paf tests a data-sharing pilot. Plus how to spot an unlicensed ad.

Illustration of a phone feed with one post outlined in gold, a warning shield and a magnifying glass
Written by Steffen Fonvig
Published Last updated
Contents7

Gambling advertising on Facebook and Instagram has become a running dispute between regulators, licensed operators and Meta. Regulated companies say unlicensed casinos reach their customers through paid ads that slip past Meta's checks, and regulators in several countries have said so publicly. In 2026 the pressure moved from complaints to courtrooms, and one licensed operator is now testing a different approach: working with Meta directly. This article sets out what has happened, what each side says, and how you can spot an unlicensed gambling ad yourself.

The problem in numbers

In September 2026 the Dutch trade association VNLOK, which represents licensed online gambling operators in the Netherlands, took legal action against Meta and complained to the European Commission. It argues that Meta is not meeting its obligations under the EU's Digital Services Act to deal with illegal content.

VNLOK has published more than one analysis, and the figures differ by period. According to iGaming Business, its review of the final quarter of 2025 found more than 70,000 gambling-related ads on Meta's platforms, with unlicensed operators behind over 95% of them, and less than 5% removed. NL Times reported a separate VNLOK finding for June and July: nine in ten gambling ads on Facebook came from illegal sites, and Meta removed fewer than one in six. VNLOK says Meta usually acts only when users or authorities flag an ad, and estimates that the Dutch illegal market is now about as large as the regulated one.

Regulators speak out

The criticism is not limited to the industry. In January 2026, at the ICE conference in Barcelona, Tim Miller, an executive director at Great Britain's Gambling Commission, accused Meta of tolerating illegal gambling ads. He pointed to ads in Meta's own public ad library promoting sites "not on GamStop", the British self-exclusion scheme, which steer people who have excluded themselves towards unlicensed casinos. Meta responded that it enforces strict policies on gambling ads and removes those that break them.

A court order in France

In France, the casino group Barrière took Meta to court over fake ads that used its brand to send people to unauthorised gambling sites. More than 2,400 such ads were reported to have run on Facebook and Instagram. On 28 January 2026 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld an order requiring Meta to take measures to stop these ads from appearing again, rather than only removing them one by one after they are reported. The court found that promoting unauthorised gambling is clearly unlawful in France, and that the repeated, paid nature of the ads mattered. Barrière's lawyers have presented the ruling as limiting platforms' ability to rely on the hosting exemptions in EU law for illegal casino ads.

A different route: Paf's pilot with Meta

While VNLOK is going to court, the Nordic operator Paf has chosen to cooperate. At SBC Summit Lisbon, Paf announced a pilot with Meta in Switzerland, where it is the technology partner behind a licensed online casino. Under the pilot, Paf shares information with Meta, including licence documents and website addresses, so that Meta can better tell licensed advertisers from unlicensed ones, covering both operators and affiliates. The pilot started in early October. The stated aim is to build a model in Switzerland that can then be applied to other markets if it works.

The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Legal action tests what the law requires of a platform; a data-sharing pilot tests what is practical. Both depend on the same idea: a platform can only filter what it can identify, and licence data is the clearest signal of who is allowed to advertise.

How to spot an unlicensed gambling ad

Whatever happens in courts and pilots, some ads will get through. These checks work in any market:

  1. Look for a licence, then verify it. A legitimate operator shows the name of its regulator and its licence number. Do not rely on a logo or a badge in the ad. Go to the regulator's own website and search its public register for the company name or licence number.
  2. Find the company behind the brand. A licensed operator names the legal entity that runs the site, usually in its terms or footer. If you cannot find a real company name, treat that as a warning sign.
  3. Be wary of offers that sound too good. Huge bonuses with no visible terms, "no rules" or "no limits" promises, and offers aimed at people who have excluded themselves are common in unlicensed advertising.
  4. Watch for pressure. Countdown timers, "only today" claims and messages that urge you to deposit immediately are designed to stop you checking.
  5. Check how you would pay. Requests to pay through unusual channels, such as gift cards, personal transfers or methods that are not offered by licensed sites in your market, are a red flag.
  6. If a celebrity or a well-known brand appears, be extra careful. The Barrière case shows that fake ads can borrow a trusted name.

If you see an ad that fails these checks, report it to the platform and, where possible, to your national gambling regulator. Our guide on how to choose a safe online casino covers licence checks in more detail, and our casino reviews state which regulator licenses each operator we review.

If you have excluded yourself from gambling and find ads still reaching you, that is exactly the situation self-exclusion schemes are meant to prevent. Our responsible gambling page lists free, confidential help and tools to block gambling sites and payments.

What to watch

  • The Dutch case. A court ruling on whether Meta meets its Digital Services Act duties would matter well beyond the Netherlands.
  • The European Commission. VNLOK's complaint could feed into the Commission's wider supervision of very large online platforms.
  • Paf's pilot. Whether the Swiss results are published, and whether the model is extended to other markets.

For more stories like this, see our news section.

Sources